Peter,
    You raise an important distinction between a sequenced (K?-12) plan
for teaching grammar and the immediate concerns in a single course. It
is something that I have struggled with for years. I have a very reduced
instructional sequence for my college composition courses, a sequence in
which students learn to identify S/V/C patterns, prepositional phrases,
and clauses, ideally in their own writing. Those students who do the
assignments begin to understand such problems as the "it's/its"
distinction, simply because "it's" is always an S/V pattern whereas
"its" is not. They also can improve on S/V agreement errors because they
learn to identify the subjects and verbs. Finally, comma-splices,
run-ons, and fragments are all clause-boundary errors, so the approach
enables students to understand (and sometimes actually) avoid these
errors as well. 
   Teaching this in the context of a writing course is difficult--there
is too much else that needs to be covered, but I have found this
approach to be both intellectually honest and more effective than simple
exercises, for example, that are aimed as S/V agreement errors. Those
exercises usually fail to help because the sentences in the exercises
are much simpler than the sentences that students actually write.
   This semester I will also be teaching two sections of remedial
writing, and in that course I plan on spending one-third of the class
time on this type of exercises. (In the normal Freshman comp course, I
usually spend less that 15 minutes a week, on average.) I'm currently in
the process of redoing the materials for both courses, but they will be
available on the web, for anyone who is interested. Each course packet
is a separate MS Word document.
Ed
 
 

>>> [log in to unmask] 8/6/2006 2:35:20 PM >>>

I found Craig Hancock's recent post about the discussion on this list
very helpful in understanding what this list is "about," but it also
left me with a question. 

Apparently, ATEG has agreed on "knowledge of grammar" is the prime goal
and that the development of a recommended "scope and sequence" for
grades K through 12 or perhaps through 16 is the way to accomplish this
goal.

I find the arguments for this position impressive, and, if I knew more
about the approach, would endorse them enthusiastically.  I do worry a
little that the project may become encumbered with too much terminology,
too many new terms in place of more familiar (if less accurate ones),
and too much depth of analysis.  But perhaps these concerns will prove
to be unwarranted.

However, as I have made clear in earlier posts, my concerns are
different.  I am not opposed to the emphasis on "knowledge of grammar"
as a goal for long term instruction in the school system.  In fact, I
agree that its success will go a long way toward solving the problem I
am concerned about: that the writing of many adults I teach at my
community college is marred by serious and frequent errors in grammar,
punctuation, and usage.  A long-term project to emphasize "knowledge of
grammar" in our schools will not help this generation of students, and
it is they that I am focused on.  

In the few weeks I have to assist them, I need to focus on helping them
reduce the error in their writing (and, of course, work on other large
writing issues like focus, coherence, development, and organization--but
on this list I want to focus on the grammar issues).  To make progress
on this task, I think my goal should be developing a minimalist
grammar--emphasizing those terms and concepts that are helpful in
mastering control over the conventions of formal writing.  

What I hope to find on the ATEG list is others who would like to
discuss strategies for doing this.  I would like to discuss questions
like the following.  What would constitute such a "writer's grammar"?
How might such basic concepts as subject and verb, sentence and
independent clause be explained more clearly than the way they are in
traditional handbooks, which my students find incomprehensible.  How
might students be encouraged to transfer whatever we can teach them
about eliminating error into their own writing?  

However, I wonder if I've come to right place when I read Craig's
observation that, "The Scope and Sequence I would like to help work on,
the one endorsed by the ATEG conference, takes 'knowledge of grammar' as
a prime goal. Once that is set in motion, then anyone who believes that
conscious knowledge is not important or that traditional grammar already
solves all our needs should simply work on a different set of goals or
get out of the way."  And later when he adds, " If someone interrupts to
say that this is not important to them, so it shouldn't be important to
us, or that traditional grammar never included it, then the work can't
get done."

Please note that I have no objection to Craig and others working on
their goals, but I am startled by the suggestion that my having a
different goal means I am "getting in the way" and "interrupting."  The
ATEG web site states that "ATEG, an Assembly of the National Council of
Teachers of English, is a national forum for discussing the teaching of
grammar, and welcomes all views on the role of grammar in our schools." 
If, in fact, it has been decided that this list is a place to discuss
the "knowledge of grammar" goal and others are not welcome, I would
appreciate that being made explicit.


Peter Adams




Peter Adams
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/